Reviews

Worst movie that I have seen in a long while. No basis in mythology. The story line was virtually impossible to follow. All the characters looked alike. The costuming consisted of bizarre headdresses, the most bizarre worn by the high priestess and her gaggle of priestesses. Lots of clashing swords which I generally love and endless battle scenes, which would have been great if they had been easier to follow. Dark screens hid much of the action. This promised to be a great movie but the lack of alignment with mythology diminished its appeal for me. The actors were not given much to work with. Admittedly, I am not a fan of the "bring the graphic novel to life" genre, but it isn't the concept I dislike, but the like of clarity and vision that permeates the execution. It did have nice CGI but not worth the price of the movie - and I watched it for free and feel cheated.

I had looked forward to this movie. I love the fantasy genre and expect to make allowances for low budgets, B actors and short time frames production schedules. But I think this one could have been made better in somebody's basement.

The costumes were unacceptable. They looked contrived and inappropriate for their purpose.

The acting was horrible. The hero and heroine didn't appear to be in this movie. Their dialog was stilted. The delivery appeared uncomfortable. Part of this could be blamed on the direction, but maybe the director couldn't pull better performances from them. Hard to say.

The plot of this genre is often far-fetched and I don't have a problem using my own imagination to fill in the usual gaps. But this film had too many gaps for even the most vivid imagination to assist.

I feel sorry for anybody whose name was associated with this film. It will certainly not do their careers any good.

I had been looking forward to seeing this movie through weeks of advertising and I was not disappointed.

The story was well written, with several interesting twists. The movie is a mix between legend and farce and is very well done. It is fast paced with just the right mix of seriousness and playfulness.

James Purefoy is excellent. His voice, his looks, his charisma are everything a knightly hero should be. His acting is extraordinary and his comic timing was superior. I had enjoyed him in his small role in "A Knight's Tale" and wondered if the promise he showed in that movie would carry over into others. His acting surpassed my expectations. The other actors and actresses play their roles well, too. They made an unbelievable story believable... well, almost.

The direction was not heavy handed, maintaining the lighthearted spontaneity of the movie. Costumes were great, sets were lovely, script was fun.

All in all, this is a movie I would recommend to my friends.

I love this type of movie. I find anything period interesting. But this movie did not live up to its promise.

The story was great. How could the movie makers go wrong with a tried and true legend? But the acting was horrendous. Max von Sydow was wonderful. Kristanna Loken played her part well and with the deep feeling one would expect from Brunhilde. The rest of the cast never rose above mediocre and Benno Furmann was awful. Hard for a movie to impress when the lead is so unimpressive.

The costumes were often gaudy. Perhaps this was an operatic effect??? But overall, they left much to be desired.

An additional flaw was the directing. Too often the extras in the film ignored the main action, which was often in the town square. I would have thought the sets could have been better unless, of course, most of the money was spent on the aforementioned gaudy costumes.

All in all, much as I like this genre, I could not recommend this movie to anyone.

The plot was confusing and the shots bouncing around between a blonde Paltrow and a brunette Paltrow didn't have any cohesion. I still can't figure out how she was with one beau as the blonde Helen and the other beau, who should have known her as the brunette Helen, has no trouble recognizing her when she was the blond Helen.

This movie may appeal to individuals who can't sit still for longer than a sound byte. I saw it described as a comedy, yet I never saw anything particularly funny in it.

John Hannah's accent was very nice. That is the best thing that I can say about the movie.

Words cannot describe how awful this movie is. Even the children and the old ladies sitting behind me couldn't find anything funny or appealing in this movie. I stayed through the whole thing, from beginning to end, indicating that hope springs eternal, but, to my dismay, the cause was hopeless.

Given an enchanting premise and stood-the-test-of-time storyline, this movie could have soared to movie heaven. As written, it bounces along the rocky bottom of poor puns, woeful writing and disastrous directing, ending in a hole of horrible film history. As directed, the dialogue is boring, both the hero and heroine lack intelligence and insight, the sight gags aren't funny, and the supporting characters aren't interesting. Michael Caine is the only bright spot in this sordid affair and even he can only bring a faint glow to this disaster. Will Ferrell was, well, Will Ferrell, and that is probably not a good thing. It is sad to think that poor writing and directing could so badly warp a Shirley MacLaine performance. Alas, her performance was also truly dreadful.

If Nicole Kidman's constant twitching of her nose is any indication, she, too, must know that this film stinks.

The movie is fine as long as you know this is fiction, not history. There are some items in it which are historically relevant. The costumes are OK. But Greek fire was invented long before 1357 and would have been known to both the English and French of the day. And I am not sure how a 20th century archaeologist would have recreated it since the formula appears to have been lost after the Middle Ages. And I was surprised that a French lady of noble birth would have spoken English since many of the "English" still spoke French and not English as their native tongue. But, in spite of its shortcomings, it was still an interesting movie.

I love this film. It is better than the previous movie version. Heath Ledger does a good job of moving between emotions: love, fear, desperation, honor, courage, anger, loyalty, hopelessness and peace. Kate Hudson, who is not one of my favorite actresses, did a good job of moving her character along the emotional avenue from resentment against Harry to guilt at having failed him. She did this with remarkably little screen time.

The movie had myriad themes: Western arrogance, cultural disparity, honor and dishonor. It thought it took the book's themes and gave them a modern twist.

Years ago when I first saw this production I was mesmerized. More than a quarter of a century later I can still say that it is the best rendition of "The Taming of the Shrew" that I have ever seen. Thoroughly enjoyable, it appears to follow the original Shakespeare in exactly how I imagine it was meant to be performed for Elizabethan audiences. The actors "played" to the crowd. The bawdy wit was obvious as I am sure it was designed to be. The characters interacted with one another as they would have appeared before an Elizabethan crowd but the dialogue was masterfully spoken in a manner completely understandable to a modern audience.

Marc Singer was wonderful. Truly the best performance of his career.